TDPS: Cartoonist Ted Rall Interviewed, Says We Need Violence to Impact Change

[celtics23]

Run time: 10:41 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXXeS-zu9Lg   Posted on YouTube: November 12, 2010 By YouTube Member: MidweekPolitics Views on YouTube: 506   Posted on DU: November 16, 2010 By DU Member: celtics23 Views on DU: 670

 
From: www.davidpakman.com | Subscription: www.davidpakman.com/membership | YouTube: www.youtube.com/midweekpolitics

TRANSCRIPT:

David: Hey, welcome back to the show. Ted Rall is joining us. He is the author of the book, "The Anti-American Manifesto", which I have in front of me. Hey, Ted, good to see you.

Ted Rall: Likewise, how are you?

David: So it's not every day that you go... somebody goes on TV and starts talking about the possibility that we would need violence, or at least the threat of violence, to really inspire change, and I love the fact that if you Google your name right now, the Tea Partiers and Fox News are going nuts over the things that you said on Dylan Ratigan's show the other day.

Ted: That is true. They are crazy. It's kind of amazing how little it really takes to anger them. And what's also really weird is how long it took them to discover that the book was out. This book came out in... Oh, let me turn this off.

David: Uh-oh.

Ted: I've got my other phone... OK, there we go. Anyway, the... yeah, it's amazing to me that it took so long for them to discover that the book was out. It came out in September, and now here we are in late November, and they finally noticed that this book called "The Anti-American Manifesto" was sitting in bookstores. I have to assume it's because they never go to bookstores, but...

David: That could be the case. So can... I mean, give me a sense of, when you say that violence or the threat of violence, which are two totally different things in reality, why would those be necessary? I mean, is it because the current system is not working? And what is it exactly that you want to change?

Ted: Well, I want to change everything. The violence is already in the system, you know, I mean, the reason that I'm opposed to the system is that it is violent. I'm opposed to the violence of the, the unspeakable violence of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the occupation of Haiti, and a lot of other similar outrages around the world. I'm outraged at the violence against the planet, the destruction of the environment, etc. And I'm outraged, not least, at the violence of the capitalist system and the brutal corporations that are throwing people out of their homes even though they haven't even done anything wrong, many of whom have even paid their mortgages up to date, using fraudulent paperwork. The system is brutal, and so the violence is already here among us.

And just to be really clear on this, no one likes violence, no one sane. And I'm opposed to it, and the violence is why I'm against... want to change everything. But you have to, when you're taking on this violent colossus, you have to be willing to not tie one hand behind your back. You've got to avail yourself of violence and the credible threat of violence as a tool in your arsenal in the event that you need it. What's gone wrong with the left for the last 40 years, among many other organizational issues, is that they have sort of sworn pacifism above all else. So the system isn't really afraid, you know, I mean, you could have a million people march in the streets against the war in Iraq, but the president isn't worried that this might get out of control and that maybe he should ramp down and maybe not invade Iraq or go in later or go in smaller or not go in at all. There's no worry there because after all, everyone's all peaceful and nothing's going to happen, and it's been so long since anything's happened that there is no real credible threat.

David: But so are you saying in a sense that in order to, for example, with the war in Iraq as an example just because George W. Bush's book is out now and we've been hearing from him a lot of the logic, or lack of logic, that took place there, should liberals have gotten out onto the street, or not necessarily just liberals, whoever was against the war, and become violent? And if so, against who? Against the police? I mean, certainly they don't deserve it.

Ted: Well, it is their jobs, honestly. You know, that's why they have those big guns. I think... you know, let's say, let's just go back to 2003. We know that what we did did not work. I say "we" because I marched too. We marched in the streets peacefully, we walked around, we chanted our slogans, we went home, we ate dinner, we went to sleep. Nothing happened, the tanks rolled in the next day just as if nothing had happened, which, in a sense, nothing had happened.

But let's just say for the sake of argument, to paint a picture, that Washington D.C. had burned half to the ground due to riots. Do you think they would've gone in quite so quickly, or do you think the next time they were thinking about invading a foreign country, like say the way they invated Haiti after the earthquake, do you think that would be... would've happened as quickly? Probably not.

I mean, you can see what's going on now in England with the tuition increase riots and in France with the Social Security retirement age riots. The government knows not to screw with its people too much, otherwise things get out of control. And that's not good for business, and you know, government exists primarily to make sure that business keeps going.

David: Well, it's interesting because the two cases you cite over in Europe, and my dad was recently in France and he was kind of in the middle of what is going on there, there is a sense that the changes or potential changes directly affect the everyday lives of the people, whereas the war in Iraq, as we've talked about, both sides have said, you know, nobody in the U.S. has really sacrificed other than the members of the military and their families specifically because we are in this war. So in a sense, it's easy to just, you know, do your protest, hold your sign, and then go home and get back to what you were doing, right?

Ted: Well, that's exactly right. I mean, the lack of a draft is a big part of the reason, as many analysts have pointed out, that there is no forward motion on a real protest movement. I mean, people aren't invested. I mean, it's kind of sad to think that we have to personally be threatened with being sent to a war and killed before we start to care, but apparently that's what we Americans are made of.

David: So would you favor a draft?

Ted: You know, I would really favor to echo the Tea Party, some constitutional purity. You know, according to our Constitution, only Congress can declare war. I'd like to take it one step further. I mean, presidents have been stealing that right for really ever since Thomas Jefferson, and it's gotten really bad in the 20th century. But I would love to see a war subjected to a national referendum. I don't think if you have, if under 80% of the country are willing to support a war, I don't really see how we could go ahead with it. I mean, after all, even if you're not fighting it or giving your sons and daughters to fight it, we're all paying an enormous price financially for these wars. I mean, right now, war accounts for 54% of the U.S. federal budget. We're right now, 19% of your federal tax dollars goes to paying the interests on old wars. So you know, war is our national business, and it's something that we should all be voting on. And I bet if there was a, if there'd been a vote on the war against Iraq or the war against Afghanistan, I bet those wars wouldn't have taken place, you know?

David: Hey, I don't want to get into the full story of how you became a cartoonist, but I've reviewed the story and I do like your work quite a bit. Can you solve an ongoing discussion that's taking place in-studio here between my producer and myself which is this: My producer is a big fan of "South Park", and I've always told him I find it to be completely unwatchable in part because of the drawings. And at the same time, he's told me, you know what, the "Family Guy" drawings have been criticized by the "South Park" guys because they're just overly simplistic and too easy to draw. As a guy who is a scholar of the cartoon, so to speak, can you tell me how important the way the cartoon is drawn should be compared to the message that is contained within it?

Ted: Well, I'm going to side with you, David, on the issue of "South Park". I personally think those guys are great and I love "Team America", the movie...

David: So you're siding... Oh, OK, so you're... yeah.

Ted: But I find "South Park" unwatchable.

David: Got you.

Ted: I think the humor is great, but the art makes my eyes bleed. You know, it's a visual medium. At the bare minimum, the art should be inoffensive, or you should be able to at least tolerate watching it for 30 straight minutes, which I just can't. But of course, this is subjective and there are lots of people who feel differently. I think it's surprising about "Family Guy". I think with "Family Guy" the art's just super-generic, very Hannah Barbera-influenced, you know, just like "The Simpsons". There's not much to it really, and that's fine, you know? I mean, I like simple art. I draw, I personally use very abstract drawing and I like it that way, but you know, it's... one person's fine art is another person's crap.

David: Any comment on that, Louis?

Louis: Well, I'm just... this brings to mind a show that was not on for very long called "Tom Goes to the Mayor", and the show wasn't even animated, it was just still images that sometimes they would zoom in on. And I could still watch that, and I thought it was hilarious.

David: So I think what we see is Louis just has a very low barometer for what he'll watch, right?

Louis: Well, that's... you know, hey, that's great, personally. I mean, I... like I don't really, you know, I'm not an art slut at all. I mean, I don't really care if someone has a beautiful mind. And I think the message is the most important thing by far. And you know, if the satire is good, that's great. I just find "South Park" easier to listen to than to watch.

David: All right. We've been speaking with Ted Rall, the book is "The Anti-American Manifesto". I recommend it highly. I read it myself. Thanks so much for joining us, Ted.

Ted: My pleasure.

David: OK, we'll talk to you soon. And we'll take a break, Louis, and we'll be back with more after this on The David Pakman Show.

[qcmadman1]

1. A little too late Ted

Should have thought about this BEFORE GOP nutjobs took over and we got into multiple pointless wars

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

3. I dont advocate violence but I agree that we will not get change w/o it.

After years of marching peacefully with a police escorts within police barriers, down the streets the police wanted us to go so as to not disrupt the public, Looking around and seeing that my fellow marchers were smiling and drinking their Starbucks, I realize the absurdness of the action.

The Vietnam War was horrendous and yet it went on and on, thousands and thousands of people died for nothing, well not for nothing, for profiteer's profits. Only when children died at Kent State did we get their(?) attention.

[struggle4progress]

4. I think Rall's cartooning is usually brilliant, with a dark edge

that often captures very well my feelings about the world in which we live

And as a purely abstract matter, I suppose I must agree that absolute pacifism has its dangers

But from a tactical perspective, there are usually real advantages to non-violence -- especially disciplined and well-organized non-violence

I don't believe our problem in recent years has been pacifism: I think our problem has been a combination of unrealistic expectations about how easy or hard real change is, a failure to analyze the power structures in concrete detail (rather than abstractly), a misplaced reliance on the importance of expressing opinion, a failure to engage in the tedious work of tracking regulations and legislation, a failure to organize ourselves effectively in a disciplined fashion for struggles that may take decades to win ...

[Capitalocracy]

5. Here's my take on this

I think violence is almost never the answer. Yes, there comes a time for revolution and yes, those revolutions are often achieved through violence, but unless you make violence the absolute last resort, then your cause isn't worthy of violence and you are a criminal.

And by last resort, I mean that all peaceful means, not just tested peaceful means but any peaceful means that we can come up with, must be tried first. Innovation and persistence and movement building have to come long, long, long before violence, and the fact is I think there's a lot we haven't tried yet.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Yes.

Time for people to refresh themselves on Gandhi and MLK. There are many ways to make a nuisance of yourself without resorting to violence. Driving tanks over people really makes for bad publicity.

[onehandle]

6. Rall is a loon. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Before anyone gets all juiced-up on the prospect of breaking things,

let us remember how the agents provocateur have always found it useful to seed violence into otherwise peaceful demonstrations. Think Haymarket Square. Think Chicago '68. I was a protester in Madison in the '69-73 era and remember the stupid violence there. Burning down a neighborhood grocery store in one instance. It culminated in the AMRC (Sterling Hall) bombing, and for months after that everyone was walking around rather dazed, looking at each other with big eyes.

Maybe one could hit just the right note with the violence and get the desired result. I doubt it. The agents (the guys wearing combat boots with their civvies) would push it to where they want, and people are going to get shot. It won't be the cops & Guards. I feel the same about violence as I do about pulling a loaded gun. You'd better not do it unless you're prepared to carry through with the threat. In terms of civil insurrection, this isn't 1780. We've got personal arms. They've got tanks, APC's bombers, drone missiles….Who ya think is gonna win that one? Maybe the Überrich would be quite happy to reduce the population of "useless eaters" in the US via military means.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Bad idea. The US government would just fire bomb everyone.

Even the Dems love blood.

[MineralMan]

10. A violent overthrow of this system of government is the height of

foolishness. It's an excuse for not being able to convince enough voters to your side, whatever that side is. It is nothing but failure to convince, then violence to impose your will. I reject it, whoever wants to do it. The far right also wants a violent revolution. Different goals, perhaps, but the same result. It would produce no good changes whatsoever.

[defendandprotect]

11. We've already had the violence....50+ years of right wing political violence, assassinations.....

and other crimes --

Are people sitting in front of the TV's still waiting for the news reader to

actually let them know if something is wrong?

[celtics23]

12. Yeah, and at long last...

...wouldn't everyone just end up arrested and the same things would happen?

[defendandprotect]

13. Agree with you completely .... in fact the right wing has been trying for decades to

get a faked war between "blacks" and "whites" going --

It's kinda like holding a new Constitutional Congress or bringing back

the Guillotine --

It's probably we who would lose rights and have our heads chopped off!!

Violence is a mistake by any measure -- IMO.

:)